Chinese
诶！如果这样，如果以无过失来代表是量，那么那时就会比其他更清楚地说是量。如果那样，那么“从自身来说是量”这句话就会相矛盾。为了阐明这一点，就是以“无实事量”等来说明。如果无过失无实事，如果这样说的量如果必定成立，那么这不会成为定义，因为不确定不能成为定义。确定没有事物，这也是因为没有量。像这样，对于“是”和“其他”，就会更清楚地说是没有事物的量。如果那些存在，男人的过失，有境的知识就不会产生。对于所说的那些，说了“如果那些存在”等。如果功德存在，过失的有境的知识就不会产生，那么进入他人相续的功德，因为是超感觉的，如果没有完全了解，就不能确定没有过失，因为没有过失是功德的事物自性。如果不完全了解瓶子所空的处所等，就不能知道没有瓶子。为了说明这一点，说了贪嗔痴等。那些，就是过失。如果谁不取少女，仅仅通过了解功德，那时就不会做事。如果没有过失，仅仅是存在，要知道会带来利益。这样说，这是通过了解功德等来怀疑，对于那个带来利益，就是对确定没有过失带来利益。如果那样，就用“如果那样”等来回答，如果仅仅因为功德存在就会进入确定没有过失，那么那时因为确定会损害那些，因为想要相信，对于某些人来说，如果对于没有过失不会变成怀疑和颠倒，那么也不是那样。因此，就是因为那个。只要没有生起具有功德的确定，那么就会变成没有过失的有境的怀疑和颠倒，因此功德仅仅是存在
English
E! If it is like this, if being faultless represents validity, then at that time it will be said more clearly than others that it is validity. If that is the case, then the statement "from itself it is validity" will be contradictory. To clarify this, it is explained by "non-existent validity" and so on. If faultless is non-existent, if the validity said in this way necessarily becomes established, then this will not become a definition, because uncertainty cannot become a definition. Determining that there is no thing, this is also because there is no validity. Like this, for "is" and "other," it will be said more clearly that it is the validity of non-existence. If those exist, the faults of men, the knowledge of the object-possessor will not arise. For what was said, it was said "if those exist" and so on. If virtues exist, the knowledge of the object-possessor of faults will not arise, then the virtues that enter the continuum of others, because they are beyond the senses, if they are not fully understood, then it cannot be determined that there is no fault, because being without fault is the self-nature of the object of virtue. If the place empty of a vase and so on is not fully understood, then it is not possible to know that there is no vase. To illustrate this, it is said anger, delusion, and so on. Those, are the faults. If someone does not take a young woman, only through understanding the virtues, at that time he will not do anything. If there is no fault, it is only existence, one should know that it will bring benefit. It is said like this, this is doubted by understanding the virtues and so on, for that bringing benefit, it is bringing benefit to the certainty of being without fault. If that is the case, then answer with "if that is the case" and so on, if only because the virtues exist will one enter into the certainty of being without fault, then at that time because certainty will harm those, because one wants to believe, for some people, if doubt and reversal will not occur for being without fault, then it is not like that either. Therefore, it is because of that. As long as the certainty of possessing virtues has not arisen, then it will become doubt and reversal of the object-possessor of being without fault, therefore virtues are only existence.
Chinese
不是进入事业的因。如果不是为了确定诸功德的事业没有过失，即使那样，如果不能确定没有过失，也会变成正量，如果这样想，那也是不合理的。因为如同先前一样，对于想要相信的论者来说，会变成没有矛盾的过失。如果他的话语本身能确定是正量，那么对于那个论者来说，这人说的是真话还是不是真话，这样想是不合理的。这里“颠倒”一词是包含怀疑，怀疑也是依赖于二者，因此可能会有颠倒。如鸠摩罗梨所说：因此从功德，没有诸过失，由于没有它，不是正量无二，因此一般不排除。等等，这里所说的其他，也是为了说明不能确定没有过失是不合理的。因为不了解它没有过失。等等。如果能够成就远离怀疑和颠倒的知识，那么那时就会变成正量。对于被排除的境，怎么能普遍适用呢？怀疑和颠倒也是过失的因，如果不能确定没有过失，那么没有它们也是不合理的。如果说“不是正量无二”，就是没有怀疑和颠倒。显示不一致的就是“这词”等等。如是，仅仅具有没有过失等等，就变成不能确定是正量，这是不合理的，已经显示完毕。现在，如果它们存在，就要依赖于确定，否则会变成没有从其他方面达到正量的结果，为了详细显示这二者，因此说了没有过失等等。没有过失和没有非量，没有非量二者和从功德中无疑地了知，那就要承认那是确定。如果不是那样，因为不能确定什么是正量，所以已经显示完毕。如果说是应该承认，那么那又会怎么样呢？那就是
English
It is not the cause of engaging in activities. If it is not for the purpose of ascertaining that the activities of all virtues are without fault, even so, if it cannot be ascertained that there is no fault, it will become a valid measure. If you think so, that is also unreasonable. Because, as before, for the debater who wants to believe, it will become the fault of having no contradiction. If his words themselves can be determined to be a valid measure, then for that debater, is this person speaking the truth or not, it is unreasonable to think like that. Here, the word "inverted" includes doubt, and doubt also depends on both, so there may be inversion. As Kumarila said: Therefore, from virtue, there are no faults, because without it, it is not a valid measure, so it is not excluded in general. And so on, what is said here is also to show that it is unreasonable to be unable to determine that there is no fault. Because it is not understood that it has no fault. And so on. If it is possible to achieve knowledge free from doubt and inversion, then at that time it will become a valid measure. How can it be generally applied to the excluded realm? Doubt and inversion are also the cause of faults, and if it cannot be determined that there is no fault, then it is unreasonable to be without them. If you say "not a valid measure without two", it means there is no doubt and inversion. What shows the inconsistency is "this word" and so on. Thus, it is unreasonable to become unable to determine whether it is a valid measure just by having no fault, etc., and it has been shown. Now, if they exist, they must depend on certainty, otherwise it will become a result of not reaching a valid measure from other aspects. In order to show these two in detail, therefore, it is said that there is no fault, etc. There is no fault and no non-measure, and there is no doubt that the two non-measures and the virtues are known, then it must be admitted that it is certain. If it is not so, because it is impossible to determine what is a valid measure, it has already been shown. If it is said that it should be admitted, then what will happen? That is